HEX Final Decision 2021-39 HEX NO. 2021-39
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
August 26,2021
PETITION.
PETITION NO. BDE-PL20200001108—260 Sharwood Drive—Request for a 12.8 foot boat
dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County
Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 32.8 feet to accommodate an existing boat
dock facility with one vessel for the benefit of property described as Lot 21, Block A, Palm
River Estates, Unit No. 7, also described as 260 Sharwood Drive, in Section 23,Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The purpose of the boat dock extension(BDE)request is to bring an existing 32.8' non-compliant
boat dock into compliance. The existing dock currently extends 12.8' beyond the allowable 20'
protrusion for a total protrusion of 32.8'.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(4) of the
Collier County of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of
the County Administrative Code.
2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all
County and state requirements.
3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in-person in accordance with
Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04.
4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial
Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in-person.
5. The County representative introduced the Petition and staff recommendations, followed by
Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative, and then public comment. There were no
objections to the Petition at the public hearing. The neighbors at 252 Sharwood Drive supplied
a written "no objection" letter.
Page 1 of 5
6. The County's Land Development Section 5.03.06.H. lists the criteria for dock facility
extensions. The Hearing Examiner may approve,approve with conditions,or deny a boat dock
extension request if it is determined that at least four(4)of the five (5)primary criteria, and at
least four(4) of the six(6) secondary criteria have been met.1
Primary Criteria:
1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in
relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject
property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where
vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number
should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical
multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier
island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is MET. The property is
located within a residential single-family zoning district and comprises of a single boat
dock facility which accommodates a 12-foot vessel. The existing dock protrudes 32.8'from
the top of bank identified as the most restrictive point per LDC Section 5.03.06.C.1.
2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general
length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch
or moor at mean low tide (MLT).
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is NOT MET. The water depth
is not an issue. The purpose of the boat dock extension(BDE)request is to bring an existing
32.8'non-compliant boat dock into compliance.
3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an
adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any
marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is MET The existing dock
facility does not protrude into any marked or charted navigable channel. Said dick facility
protrudes 32.8'from the top of bank leaving 110.8'of navigable water.
4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the
waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock
facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the
required percentages.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is MET The drawing in the
applicant's support material labeled Site Plan Drawing shows the waterway is 143.6'from
the top of bank. The proposed dock protrusion is 32.8'which is 23%width of the waterway.
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility
would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere
with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is MET. The existing dock
facility will satisfy the required 15-foot side yard/riparian setbacks and will not interfere
with any existing or future neighboring docks.
Secondary Criteria:
1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject
property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the
proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the
property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration,
mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that criterion is NOT MET. There is nothing
special about the subject upland property or the waterway to justify the dimensions and
location of the petitioners existing dock.
2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for
loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not
directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area).
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is MET As shown on the
drawings by the petitioner, the deck area is not excessive.
3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in
combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's
linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is MET The subject property
contains 490.64 feet of water and canal frontage, and the vessel is 12 feet or 2% of the
water/canal frontage.
4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of
neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view
of a neighboring property owner.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that criterion is MET. The existing dockfacility
will not have an impact on waterfront view of neighboring property owners and will be
consistent with existing facilities along shoreline as shown in the aerial drawing. The
existing dock facility meets the setback requirements and will not impact the view of the
neighboring waterfront property owners.
Page 3 of 5
5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds
are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.J of the LDC must be demonstrated.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is MET. The submerged
resources survey provided indicates that no seagrass beds exist within the footprint of the
dock. No seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of
subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section
5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is NOT APPLICABLE. The
provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to individual docks
behind individual residences.
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff
report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's
representative(s), County staff and any given by the public,the Hearing Examiner finds that there
is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Section 5.03.06.H
of the Land Development Code to approve the Petition. The Petition meets 4 out of 5 of the
primary criteria and 4 out of 6 secondary criteria.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20200001108, filed by Bill
Nelson and Sabrina Dobbins of Greg Orick II Marine Construction, Inc. representing Judith
Dugan, with respect to the property described as 260 Sharwood Drive, Lot 21, Block A, Palm
River Estates, Unit No. 7, in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida, for the following:
• A 12.8-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of
the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for a total protrusion of 32.8'-feet in
order to accommodate an existing boat dock facility with one vessel on a property zoned
Single Family Residential (RSF-3).
Said changes are fully described in the Boat Dock Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to
the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A—Boat Dock Plans
•
Page 4 of 5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
260 Sharwood Drive, Lot 21, Block A, Palm River Estates, Unit No. 7, in Section 23, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
CONDITIONS.
All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5)F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or
undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
APPEALS.
This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done
in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES
AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
X..2.;Z.•-•(.—..-.----
September 24, 2021
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
CAIti
Y w
c O
o
c. gla o
•
•
• 1 \\,\,
k\ 1J1
rsi as
C �+
ta M
.. t. L1 M
14
W > > Fyl
7 rl— 1. 1 a Q w
•
f• - N
a
o .3
0
a 0
O
O
w A ~ O
rn
ii C O M N
13 ro AGWo a
G W
.ate � N o
A - rn °: in m
o
a tiNZ �
Y
c N (d
co H t
¢I- CD a
4,
Cg1 Y
- „ a W V
.al a
0 ,j CV el \ 44 i V)
o.
H0
CD
Q.
V U I'
aZ [-° E \ O W �
.4 co `� W Z
y3 `i' c g Ce 0 v
awob > o
W .2 f Q o 0 U
O a- :ti ° 0 0
z ¢ 3i- aF- H
9 ;ery Oa o C
s
I I 0 e 1 2 - );
z gA ill i id
I v alb.
1 z z5,?go
t cc' g DP' ' .
I o aA . w jiIi
• i 2 § 0 / +I
0 co
•
\ x
l' co
\ U
J \ ' J
I w
cc \ n
w LWJ
0
w K kw�' f
J
U '6 „' #
K.
/ 404
Q /w % 4161,/
1= i /
,n
// -rc
i/
cn
D -� eb
/
z /
o 1
U
7010 ...
/
r`,
40 eig
/ `ti
/ at
/ Ro
/
/
/
CY
G5'
PAP
/I°
M _
f—Z—G� o
J
Q
U
u
i
o 1-4
j i rn
ri
y,,
,.,
: .••Aes 4.4,6
I ..
0. c,
Q. Q.
I \� Q a i
♦
I 1C1
. 7\/\<
N I
1I Ao
. O ry
C "CM
k O w�i \ \ el
' a) A z
N II / /. /IX +ramci) n 1
U / \/ N
1 �� tiNz
. _ / . 4.0 ',A
z Q AI z W_ z 1 .
M. #itat
_._. .z ao
co
, ,
igt
.:, Nr IN
#I O z in
ell' g 2 o In
I 44.
OCzO)
' , H
' /Y a o N
s 4 ,� set
'' ,,`' ►' 0 w.
yt" Lw y , $ l+y +y ` ,y' .
A
w k
1 . 41i1 .
, ; 44.411 .7.' - .1. i ".
c /
�, - f �.�
1 ► r. �,, , in 0
+ s y 'IC . , • r it > >
,. !,74 :-,
i,
. -
* 7v Q Q
'. 4 1.,.S + ?'� , , +f�_. + .�
e‘.-
4Kii.,41--,,,„,„.„. 4.,
,t w
-.i it_:.. s.. ‘it
. _
- ah, . '•••JI o.z .., 1 Y ,p: . ,, ,
d'—q'
US
4 f A ow os N
= .;,, .
�L.
1 a •; a ` 1 .. CL M
.. . ,,, 4,, ,.
j!iir!'.. cn
•
�. ►fir L. ^2
' '_C . .-. F-i < I--1
z z ao
ix ~ ao
{
UHF
•
WZN
•
UU
J
\
81
9r4$ g " a N
�- — o \ O !
F s y=
-ZQ `p b
\ w §wg i§i 8 g ?
W Qi i i
\ YS uia". r
y W
\ $ ? tA,e,,, �i j
o � d
Z
o is i
/ - _,f
X
/ co/ U
/
/ J
/ ..:: :::::*1:::.":"="::: rig
ig
.:::: _ i� \\\\
.^.firms
o� x \\x x
x }
x
72
-I 54 x x =
x x
m i\it‘t\%
-,.. x o
lik
a} ` o
x
mIA x ' x % I ~ iIt x I IA �N.
x txJo f x fo
xa rl x7a6
x s Iw x6 x a
TR
TE x^b 1 pi
txuo x 11R IV o
wa x x
x ,
•. x x gr n} BXao
x x ' x 4 4 8x
x 5x0. IW �x
x 7pS. x, x `� x� O
1 x x�� `s (
x� x � x a N
a g 9A x
x x a
ma m .T x
IOa x a x a I IO
x ILO
ix ,m x
x x
IR
x
r
,
a O '
r j W ), 4 - Na Ci, O
z
OR < „, a k'
M G o 9 � < m 2 g$ }
1X a, z m ' B
4 ltiaa Bo Wq i 2
3 Vc.a < - E WOy� O 3 a Ne ? < 41
it HI
Bz
}g[Y7O y• C N_O >
8 n �O } W w rN N O Xi k-5 ¢ Z fti&ki r
q
a g 4 r H �l�� s as = _ $Y �t S�
= o age a s `off g m o z� �
a o Wii < W W 5 2 n } z < ap ¢ 1 A n
t�i wm Og rc . i3 < W u K•• K ,i = w
yE 2n 77a y ip� a 4 0`o�( u O H ' ar ' I i
N UW_ n wag <� O � F � ? W�1�g _ g O 46�W �p2� �i£�5W I
< •2 y��G< O� y2� = WO < y J Gj 0 jv4 W .j�
�, S 0 3� } '� N 4 ›N V) j GFCR Rd W t�Z Ul g 1S
Z py,�� U < i7gf FF ¢
m� � g�pQt < 3 mgooH 4� ? O� i G o /mri ll
= a .W 7 aOV aO p }4 � N �6 N VHGt6 Z �.•iN �/9
a g 5 < Z o Wmi !z i g griz 'dF Foz 51 I%
a o Wet W,igro-Wm W5 c Z dJ10t101
25 > W$ y ' I=u��i=i�i
6 - 0-2mX3 .12eamw m. a W�3�3W$ axe x VHF
n o -to m 3 �0 XS5d*ag Wo a i - N ri i vi CAk E
O L
1N /
/ § \
II 1 1 // X
' f7 + i oa
u ' N i I L.12
o=
' 2
(E\I
7. 1 f/.7.7
f .�
til 1 +
se. A04
I rh40
1
1
1
s O4.39.09. E
1 204.58' ; i N
'IIS. s
1 N ' s
I - --
W L---- .�-_ \\ P
to o \\• a
-
og N
.
z
W •
•
2
z
z \
aW \
K
a
i I
6 ,,.,,":11y
F / Ylly >
W
� m• .0 :oisf yip a• s
qunu.N�"•
x�.{ /
U /
I
1
r I `'..
/ �`
N 00'1 1.25" IV ' 0'
89.22' Co. F.